Not really sure what this whole "scattering" means but Ron Paul was 152 votes away from first place, so this "scattering" could have given him the
victory. I find this whole business odd because I hear that you have to buy a ticket for 30 dollars to vote at the straw poll and you also have to
show up. So 162 people paid and showed up but didn't vote? Or the votes didn't count for some reason? I'm confused, I'm sure someone can clarify what
I'm not seeing here and explain what this scattering is all about.

If that's the best Michele Bachmann can do in her home state and after paying for more attendees, then I call it a victory for Ron Paul..

I agree, and there's reason to be happy with second place because now the media made themselves look foolish by saying the straw poll had no
significance, but I'm still wondering how "scattering" managed to beat out two candidates. If anything I'm just curious not that I want a recount
or anything, I'm still happy with the results because the poll is just an indicator and not the real thing, but if the presidential ballot suddenly
had "scattering" coming in 9th place I'd want to know what the deal is with it.

While I'm convinced a lot of those in the media don't like Paul or reporting on his victories or himself completely, the 'scattering' votes are
likely write-ins for Palin, Johnson, etc.

I disagree with him on a few major points, but even I'm pissed off that Johnson's been marginalized and dismissed by the media. I don't like to
see anyone getting "Ron Paul"ed, 2007-style.

Okay, that makes sense if it is write ins for various candidates not on the list but you said it is likely that is the case, can you say with
certainty that that is definitely what it means? (I just have a personal curiosity I'm not demanding you answer me or anything).

Considering the steps taken so far by those in positions of power to do so, I don't find this poll anymore credible than FOX's debate poll last
weekend or CNN's last June. For the good of the corrupt politics as we know it, Ron Paul must be stopped at all costs!

Okay, that makes sense if it is write ins for various candidates not on the list but you said it is likely that is the case, can you say
with certainty that that is definitely what it means? (I just have a personal curiosity I'm not demanding you answer me or anything).

Unfortunately, no I can't say that's definitely what I mean - but I do expect SOME of these knuckleheads would have voted for Palin, some likely for
Huckabee with the support shown for him there, and likely some disaffected Johnson supporters.

Trust me, I'm definitely not trying to say there aren't shenanigans going on out there (I remember the 2008 primaries/caucuses, and there was
definitely some questionable activity with procedure and chain-of-control/observation - in NH and a few other specific states, offhand... *sigh*), but
this is a great place for Paul, is easily excusable via the other likely write-ins, and Bachmann's win helps avoid the downplaying of the poll as
well as being explainable by way of her home-court birth advantage and neoconservative tendencies.

Score! I'm very happy with this, actually - an outright win by Paul may have actually been more problematic and easy to dismiss.

In every single election there are "scattered" votes. Scattered votes means that they were write-ins of various names. Most of these scattered votes
were probably votes for Palin. Some may have been for Trump or some other candidate that people wanted over the ones on the ballot. They don't report
all of them on the list because there are probably 10-15 different names that got 2 or 3 votes. So they just clump them all together and call it
"scattered" votes.

I wouldn't put too much weight on the straw poll. In 2007 Mitt Romney won it and we all know who was tapped to go up against Obama right?
In 1979 George Bush Sr. won the straw poll and Ronald Reagan became president.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.